Opinion
27408-22SL
05-04-2023
JOSEPH K. CARDIN & AIMEE E. CARDIN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
Petitioners filed a petition to commence the instant case on December 15, 2022. Attached to the petition was an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice CP504, Final Balance Due Reminder - Notice of Intent to Seize (Levy) Your Property or Rights to Property concerning petitioners' taxable year 2017. No notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court was attached to the petition.
On March 22, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground the petition was not timely filed in response to the notice of deficiency sent to petitioners on August 18, 2020. Petitioners filed an objection to the granting of the motion on April 24, 2023, explaining therein that they never received the notice.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the taxpayer's case. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960).
The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). For a notice of deficiency to be valid, it must be mailed to the taxpayer's last known address by certified or registered mail. See sec. 6212(a) and (b); see also Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983). Actual receipt of the notice is not required as long as the IRS properly mailed the notice to the taxpayer's last known address. Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 810 (1987). There is nothing in the record to suggest that the address to which the notice was mailed, as evidenced by the certified mail list attached to respondent's motion, was other than petitioners' last known address.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code), Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Because the notice was properly mailed to petitioners' last known address, it was valid, and the time within which petitioners could petition this Court expired prior to the filing of the petition in this case. See sec. 6213(a). The Court has no authority to extend the deadline for timely filing. See Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022). Moreover, nothing in the record suggests that petitioners have been issued a Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt.
Petitioners may be free to raise a challenge to the underlying liability for their taxable year 2017 in a collection proceeding. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). However, at this moment, the Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate their dispute with the IRS.
Premises considered and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.